Watching pre-recorded Uverse content while disconnected from Uverse

Watching pre-recorded Uverse content while disconnected from Uverse

Hi,

I have moved to a new place and would like to watch pre-recorded shows while getting my new service in place. Is it possible to move the STB/Receiver and Gateway to the new place, run stand alone and still be able to watch the shows recorded in the STB?

I know we are not talking about live content. And as for untrue, what part is not true, when it is the fact that remains, no matter what the device is that is IPTV, it has to connect regardless who manufactured the software for the device, in order to play back the content.

You can keep going the direction you want SomeJoe, but what I have posted and stated, is fact, about the fact that if a IPTV device regardless who made it, or made the software, if it has recorded info on it that is DRM coded, it will not play back. Plain and simple.

The other providers you listed are not IPTV providers, and if they wanted to do so also, they could make it, so that their dvr's could not play back content, if not able to communicate with the head end or certificate server.

That right there is exactly the point that disproves your argument. You do understand that DirecTV, Dish Network, Comcast, etc. all record onto the hard drive in a DRM-protected format also, right? If they are able to play back DRM-protected content without an authentication server connection, then the inability for Microsoft Mediaroom to do it is a policy/design choice, not a technical requirement.

Your problem is that you are somehow connecting together IPTV and DRM. They are not bound at the hip, greg. They are separate animals. IPTV is the delivery system, DRM is the content protection system. You can have DRM with any other type of delivery system (like DirecTV and Dish Network, with satellite delivery), and you can have an IPTV delivery system without DRM (like YouTube or Roku boxes with some feeds).

Be hard-headed if you want, but your argument is patently false. DRM is never a requirement, regardless of the delivery system. Microsoft has simply made a policy choice, not a technical one.

I am not being hard headed about this. Again, if the other providers wanted to lock the boxes down, they could do it, with changing one bit during the recording process.

And again, using Microsoft as the argument in this does not hold water, since they did not come up with the IPTV delivery platform, or the technology behind it. All they did, was create a platform to be used by providers, for their end users, to be able to watch the content delivered over the IP network.

Do believe that the info from the Cisco link holds more water as to how this process works, than you repeating that Microsoft is the culprit here.

Greg, why do you continually state that Microsoft didn't invent IPTV? What does that point have to do with ANYTHING we're dicussing? Who cares who invented it? That doesn't matter in the slightest.

Explain to me how YouTube, a platform where video is delivered via IP, is not subject to the same restriction that Microsoft Mediaroom is. (i.e. I can save a YouTube video on the computer using one of several different Firefox browser plugins, and play it back later on that computer, even if that computer has no network connection).

Again, your Cisco links only explain how the system operates. They don't explain why.

I don't know if I'm not explaining it right, or if you're just stubborn. Why aren't you listening to reason? You just keep repeating the same irrelevant stuff on each post instead of answering my questions and explaining my counterexamples? Are you incapable of backing up your assertions?

It does not matter that Microsoft did not invent IPTV. They did invent the implementation used by AT&T. This implementation requires that the DVR contact some security server before playback. A different implementation could have been chosen and still been every bit as much IPTV.

The Cisco documents are marketing-rich, content-free fluff pieces that don't address this issue in the slightest.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

On Friday, it was also announced that Korea Telecom will work with Ericsson to test Ultra-High Definition TV -- or 4K -- and High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC). The latter is a compression technology that promises to reduce the bandwidth requirements for video delivery by more than 50% compared to the best H.264/MPEG-4 AVC implementations, according to Ericsson, which last year launched a TV encoder compatible with the technology.

What we plan to do is take the best of the Ericsson multiroom solution and take the best of Mediaroom and evolve them towards a next-generation solution. That really will be done in tight discussion with customers – especially Mediaroom customers,” said Frost. He said the two companies’ TV technologies were “complementary”, with Microsoft’s platform being “focused on the TV” while Ericsson had developed expertise in delivering IP video to different screens as well as in mobile TV.

Frost said that Microsoft Mediaroom customers had expressed satisfaction that the platform would now be in the hands of a company that is committed to the service provider market. “All the feedback we have had from key customers is very positive because we are very committed to this customer base,” said Frost. He said Ericsson’s ability to offer a combination of technology and a “very large service organisation” would be appealing to service providers.

Definitely looks like we're going to get some changes for the better (hopefully) soon. Sorry it's a little off-topic, but thought these things should be pointed out.

Chris

Please NO SD stretch-o-vision or 480 SD HD ChannelsNeed Help? 1-800-288-2020, After he gets acct info, press # a bunch of times, get a menu from Mr. Voice recognitionYour Results May Vary, In My Humble OpinionI Call It Like I See It, Simply a U-verse user, nothing more

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

gregzoll_1 wrote:I am only stating that it they did not create the IPTV delivery platform, because you are so adement about it, when it comes to the platform that ATT chose to deliver the service to their customers.

Adamant about what? I have never stated or claimed anywhere in this entire thread that Microsoft invented IPTV. You're the one who brought that up out of nowhere for no purpose.

gregzoll_1 wrote:

As for Youtube, different type of service, and is apples & oranges, to how IP delivery is done to the consumer to the set top box platform.

No it's not. It's video, much of it in standard MP4 SD or HD format, that is delivered over an IP network. That's the exact same way AT&T U-Verse does it (it just so happens that the network is private, i.e. not connected to the Internet).

gregzoll_1 wrote:

As for the Cisco link, it is there, because it explains the concept and how the service works from the start to the finish.

It explains the concept and how the service can work (i.e. what features are supported), but not how it must work. Cisco only builds the hardware that is compatible with Microsoft's Mediaroom (and several other IPTV providers), they don't provide any software at all, and they don't do implementation. The particulars are up to the implementor, in this case Microsoft and AT&T.

Your arguments here are classic for someone who cannot defend their position:

You have invoked a straw man argument (creating a different argument that wasn't ever mentioned, i.e. "Microsoft invented IPTV" and then refuting that)

You have invoked a false attribution argument (citing Cisco documents as "evidence" when they don't mention anything regarding playback of DVR-recorded content and the requirement for an authorization server)

You have invoked a false analogy argument (citing inability of streaming devices such as AppleTV, Roku, etc. to display content without an authorization server as evidence that a DVR, with prerecorded content, cannot do the same, when the two are not comparable in the first place).

You have invoked a faulty generalization argument ("Regardless, if you do not have a connection to the servers, regardless what the device or service is, it is not going to work." -- proven incorrect by citing the DirecTV, Dish Network, and cable box DVR examples)

The main argument is your original faulty generalization argument (Microsoft Mediaroom doesn't allow playback of recorded content without an authorization server, therefore all IPTV systems don't allow playback without their authorization server). <-- This is where you are flat wrong.

In addition, you have been asked several questions to further explain and back up your position, and you have yet to answer them:

What is the technical reason that an IPTV system would require authorization to playback previously recorded content?

What is the technical reason that YouTube easily allows saving and then subsequent playback of content without a network connection?

This is my last attempt to continue this discussion with you. Either prove you know what you're talking about by supporting your position with evidence, or admit that you're incorrect.

What more do I have to prove, that regardless what software is on the DVR, the device still has to be able to communicate with the servers, to authenticate the data stored on it for playback.

Without that authentication, the box is nothing more than a doorstop. What more do you want me to say, than what I have repeated in so many different ways already, that your argument is just that, an argument with no water to hold it.

gregzoll_1 wrote:What more do I have to prove, that regardless what software is on the DVR, the device still has to be able to communicate with the servers, to authenticate the data stored on it for playback.

Without that authentication, the box is nothing more than a doorstop. What more do you want me to say, than what I have repeated in so many different ways already, that your argument is just that, an argument with no water to hold it.

Where as I can pull the information to back mine up.

The box had to be authenticated to retrieve and record the content in the first place. Because Microsoft or AT&T decided it was so, it must reauthenticate to play the content. Nothing about IPTV vs CATV/DBS means that IPTV must reauthenticate where CATV?DBS does not. CATV/DBS can (and does) have DRM built into it as well, but doesn't require this reauthentication.

What I am still waiting for from you is a citation of a reputable source where it says that an IPTV DVR must reauthenticate for playback. International Standard, US Code, anything.

*The views and opinions expressed on this forum are purely my own. Any product claim, statistic, quote, or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer, provider, or party.

The box had to be authenticated to retrieve and record the content in the first place. Because Microsoft or AT&T decided it was so, it must reauthenticate to play the content. Nothing about IPTV vs CATV/DBS means that IPTV must reauthenticate where CATV?DBS does not. CATV/DBS can (and does) have DRM built into it as well, but doesn't require this reauthentication.

What I am still waiting for from you is a citation of a reputable source where it says that an IPTV DVR must reauthenticate for playback. International Standard, US Code, anything.

Exactly correct, Jeffer. He just can't get it into his head that DRM/reauthentication can be used, but is not required to be used. And he also doesn't get that DRM and IPTV are two separate things that have no interaction whatsoever.

I'm done arguing with him, he's so arrogant that he can't conceive of any situation where he's wrong.

gregzoll_1 wrote:What more do I have to prove, that regardless what software is on the DVR, the device still has to be able to communicate with the servers, to authenticate the data stored on it for playback.

Without that authentication, the box is nothing more than a doorstop. What more do you want me to say, than what I have repeated in so many different ways already, that your argument is just that, an argument with no water to hold it.

Where as I can pull the information to back mine up.

The box had to be authenticated to retrieve and record the content in the first place. Because Microsoft or AT&T decided it was so, it must reauthenticate to play the content. Nothing about IPTV vs CATV/DBS means that IPTV must reauthenticate where CATV?DBS does not. CATV/DBS can (and does) have DRM built into it as well, but doesn't require this reauthentication.

What I am still waiting for from you is a citation of a reputable source where it says that an IPTV DVR must reauthenticate for playback. International Standard, US Code, anything.

Again, it has nothing to do with Microsoft or ATT, it is how the IPTV system is built for the DVR systems connected to them, regardless what you and SomeJoe777 somehow think otherwise.

The box had to be authenticated to retrieve and record the content in the first place. Because Microsoft or AT&T decided it was so, it must reauthenticate to play the content. Nothing about IPTV vs CATV/DBS means that IPTV must reauthenticate where CATV?DBS does not. CATV/DBS can (and does) have DRM built into it as well, but doesn't require this reauthentication.

What I am still waiting for from you is a citation of a reputable source where it says that an IPTV DVR must reauthenticate for playback. International Standard, US Code, anything.

Exactly correct, Jeffer. He just can't get it into his head that DRM/reauthentication can be used, but is not required to be used. And he also doesn't get that DRM and IPTV are two separate things that have no interaction whatsoever.

I'm done arguing with him, he's so arrogant that he can't conceive of any situation where he's wrong.

The only reason you even started this argument is because you had nothing to back up about your statement that it is Microsoft and ATT that decided this, when it wasn't. The whole authentication scheme has been around since the beginning of time with IPTV delivery systems, which actually started in hotels & motels for content delivery to the rooms.

If you disconnect the receiving device from the network, or it can no longer communicate with the authentication server at the head end, it becomes a dumb device, or in other words a door stop.

You have nothing to back up your claims SomeJoe, so I am going to keep proving my point that you are creating a pointless argument about something that you are pulling out of nowhere, and continuing to blame Microsoft & ATT how the system works, when it is not them that came up with this method in the first place.

As for the link to Cisco, sorry, but it is not marketing, it is how the system works, and oh, they included a pretty graphic layout of the system from start to finish, how contet is delivered, along with authentication back from the customer.

Case in point, you have nothing to back up, and I can keep arguing this that you are making empty claims that again, it is Microsoft & ATT that came up with not allowing the DVR to communicate when offline. To let you in on something, this is also the case with other providers on CATV, that if the DVR does not authenticate with the head end, it will not playback any content on the DVR.

Don't sit there and tell me that I have nothing to back up my statements when you haven't offered a shred of evidence supporting yours. Your entire argument here is "Nope, that's not how it works. You should just take my word for it, because I'm Greg."

I, on the other hand, have cited numerous real-world counterexamples that disprove your theory:

YouTube doesn't enforce DRM for video content delivery.

DVRs from other providers like DirecTV employ DRM just the same as U-Verse does, but allow content playback from the DVR with no authentication server connection.

I have shown you that IPTV is a delivery mechanism, whereas DRM is a content-protection mechanism, and they are not connected. We have examples above that show IPTV delivery without DRM (YouTube), and DRM without IPTV delivery (DirecTV).

Until you refute, in technical terms, these counterexamples, your entire argument is disproven. And citing some Cisco marketing material whose purpose is to sell their equipment to IPTV providers is not a counter-argument.

Face it Greg, you're wrong, and you simply won't admit it, and everyone here knows it. That is the very definition of arrogance.

Never stated that Youtube enforces DRM, so do not really know where in the world you pulled that one from.

DVR's from other providers, can enforce non-playback when the network is down if they choose, and there are some that actually do this, so that if the DVR is not connected to the network, the content is not going to be played back, along with to lock the device out when it is not able to communicate back to the head -in. Most choose 24 hours, some choose 48 hours, that if the device does not authenticate with the head-in, it is locked out, and the consumer that has the device in their ownership/lease, have to call in to have it unlocked.

As for the delivery mechanism, I have already linked the information from Cisco, and also linked another if you wish to pay for the White paper @ $30, if you wish.

he Encryptonite ONE System is today’s proven multi-format, multi-platform CA/DRM software solution that provides the highest levels of digital content security while offering operational efficiencies and extended value. Approved by all major film studios and TV broadcasters, the Encryptonite ONE System allows telcos and broadband operators to acquire distribution rights to the most compelling broadcast channels and VOD programming. Its unique system design features an ultra-light, processor-efficient client that can be deployed on virtually any consumer media appliance to allow ubiquitous secure content distribution on current and future set-top boxes, PCs, portable players and mobile phones. Employing a patented, common encryption scheme for both broadcast and VOD content and through its exclusive EverLock™ process, the Encryptonite ONE System is the only solution available today that enables persistent and efficient protection of content at all times in distribution and storage including in DVR and nDVR applications. Newest innovations include exclusive platform extensions that allow for selectable digital forensics to track, identify and deter piracy of valued content (IdentiFind™), rapid middleware integration to speed time-to-market (CodeConnect™), and configurable security parameters for diverse quality content (TrustAdjust™).

There are many ways that the content can be secured, and as linked, you can see that it is again, not a Microsoft thing how they designed the MediaRoom platform at the beginning, it is how ATT decided to secure the DVR's, so that content could not be played back, while the boxes are offline from the system.

If you want, you can go out and research this stuff, because personally I am tired of having to go dig out the facts to prove an argument that others seem to want to drag on.

Sorry, but I see that you are going to continue this pointless argument, and have already seen that you lost on this one SomeJoe.